Unemployment Benefits Denied When Pharmacist Quits Work Because of Stress

FEBRUARY 01, 2005

Larry M. Simonsmeier, JD, RPh

Issue of the Case:
A Washington appellate court was
asked, in this month's case, to determine
whether a pharmacist who voluntarily
quit her job because of stress
induced by 12-hour shifts is entitled to
unemployment benefits.

Facts of the Case:

Jane Doe worked as a pharmacist
for a pharmacy chain that underwent
a change in ownership. During
this transition period, Doe experienced
staff turnover and stresses that
often occur with new management.
She inquired about a move to another
pharmacy and was told that a
position was available, but she
would be the pharmacist-manager
working 12-hour shifts as the only
pharmacist on duty.

Doe accepted the promotion. Soon
after her transfer to the new store,
she began experiencing pain in her
legs, blurry vision, and depression
because of the 12-hour shifts, low
staffing levels, and concerns about
errors by her relief pharmacist. In
response to these concerns, Doe's
supervisor scheduled additional help
for her even though he did not have
the budget to do so. He also advised
Doe to delegate more of her duties to
the technicians and to take a break
when she could. In addition, he
offered to return her to her former
position as a pharmacist with an 8-
hour shift. Doe declined the offer.

After 2 months in her new position,
Doe resigned. She filed for unemployment
benefits, which were initially
granted but then denied after a hearing
at the request of her employer in
front of the state Employment Security
Commission.

The Court's Ruling:

Doe appealed the denial of unemployment
benefits to the trial court. It
affirmed the decision of the Employment
Security Commission. On appeal,
the Washington Court of Appeals
also concluded that, under the facts of
this case, Doe was not entitled to
unemployment benefits. It rejected
her request for a new trial and consideration
of new evidence.

The Court's Reasoning:

Doe asked the court to remand the
case to the trial court for consideration
of new evidence. Doe cited a Seattle
newspaper article about staffing shortages
and increased errors in pharmacies
across the country. She also uncovered
an agreement between her employer
and the Board of Pharmacy, in which
the chain agreed to pay a fine and
review its methods of ensuring appropriate
personnel in each of its pharmacies.

A court may reverse the decision of
an administrative agency such as the
Employment Security Commission if
it is not supported by substantial evidence
or the order is arbitrary or capricious.
In this case, the order from the
Board of Pharmacy was not evidence
of a statutory violation, nor was it evidence
of specific conditions at the
pharmacy where Doe worked. Likewise,
the newspaper article was not
relevant. Generalized problems pervasive
in an industry are not evidence of
specific conditions at the store where
Doe worked.

Doe next argued that the evidence
supported the fact that she quit for
good cause. In its review of the facts,
the court noted that she accepted the
promotion knowing that it involved
12-hour shifts. Further, she did not
consult a physician for her physical
symptoms; she was provided with
additional help; and she declined to
return to her 8-hour position.

Evidence was introduced that,
although the conditions in the store
were stressful, the pharmacy was functioning
satisfactorily and the stresses
were usual and customary within the
practice of pharmacy. For claimants to
be successful in collecting unemployment,
they must show that they left
because of work-connected factors. Doe
knew the conditions of employment
before she accepted the job and was not
entitled to benefits when she quit.